Eliza Dushku hunting animals

[T.I.P]

Especially just hunting for sport, that's a real...hate of mine. And the fact that Eliza hunts has admittedly changed my opinion of her, I can't help it..

Its changed my opinion too. She seemed so happy to admit it, 'oh yes, shooting elk's faces with bow and arrows, great fun, ha ha'
To me its no different from walking the streets killing any dog/cat/bird you may see.

 

[Rowan Hawthorn]

Its changed my opinion too. She seemed so happy to admit it, 'oh yes, shooting elk's faces with bow and arrows, great fun, ha ha'
To me its no different from walking the streets killing any dog/cat/bird you may see.

Then you should, perhaps, learn the difference between wild animals that are wary and fearful of man and domesticated animals that don't know when they're in danger.

 

[T.I.P]

Then you should, perhaps, learn the difference between wild animals that are wary and fearful of man and domesticated animals that don't know when they're in danger.

And the difference would be what? Wild-wary, Domestic-unwary. What about it?
Why do people hunt? They enjoy it.
Guess what, i know some people that enjoy killing cats(seriously) and shooting birds/rabbits or anything else they see while shooting.
Or does an animal being wary of humans make it fair game for a shooting?

 

[Rowan Hawthorn]

Like I said, don't jump on me for all that because I do accept that there are many sides to this arguments but that is just my personal instinctual feelings on the matter.

Not jumping on you, but there's nothing instinctual about that; it's not instinct that tells you it's somehow Wrong to do something that humans have always done, and something that every other animal on earth does (with the exception of sport hunting, but a few animals even do that.) We're omnivores, adapted to eat meat as well as vegetables. The idea that it's somehow Wrong to actually partake in a large part of our natural diet, or that it's only okay if someone else kills the animal, is a product of indoctrination, not instinct. (By the way, those animals raised for food have absolutely no chance, zero, zip of survival compared to the animals in the wild, and are slaughtered in numbers that make hunters' takes pale by comparison.)
[br][/br]
Edit:
[br][/br]

And the difference would be what?
Wild-wary, Domestic-unwary. What about it?

Comparing an actual hunt to walking down the street shooting at domesticated animals that don't know enough to avoid you is idiot talk, that's what about it. You don't have a clue what you're talking about, but you want to toss off some ignorant claim like it actually makes sense.

Why do people hunt? They enjoy it.

Are you a vegetarian? 'Cause if you're not, the difference between you and those hunters is that you're the guy who pays some "hired gun" to do your killing for you. No moral high ground there, let's stop pretending there is.

Guess what, i know some people that enjoy killing cats(seriously) and shooting birds/rabbits or anything else they see while shooting.

And so, what? That means everyone who hunts does that in your world? You need to grow up and learn that there are all kinds of people in the world. Not everybody ties cats' tails together to make them fight, either. I don't like those people any better than you do.

Or does an animal being wary of humans make it fair game for a shooting?

It's the difference between a shooting gallery and a target that can run away - or, in the case of some animals, kill your ass if you're careless. Like a lot of other "animal lovers", it sounds to me like you need to spend a little more time finding out what real animals are like, and a little less time watching the Disney Channel.

 

[white avenger]

Okay no one jump on me for this opinion but I'm against hunting of any form unless it's for survival. Be it for survival through eating what you've hunted or whether it's to prevent being overran by the animal. And in that latter scenario I always think it should be done by a professional. ort, that's a real...hate of mine. And the fact that Eliza hunts has admittedly changed my opinion of her, I can't help it.

Well, actually, in most cases, hunting really is a case of survival, and ironically, it's more about the survival of the animal species being hunted than the people. By taking the older, larger males of whatever species is hunted, the hunter allows the younger males the opportunity to breed, avoiding inbreeding and weakening of the local population.n Also, by thinning the herd, more grazing area is left for the others, and with the problems of steadily reducing habitat, grazing area is a critical concern.

And I might also point out that, without hunters and sports shooters and the license fees and taxes that they pay for their ammunition and other supplies, there would be no government parks or wildlife management at all, including the care and protection of the country's non game and endangered species, because those taxes are the exclusive support for those facilities. No forest or park rangers, no government funding for research programs to preserve and protect ALL wild animals, hot just the ones that sportsmen and women hunt. Without the hunters and fishermen, all of that would be lost.

I'm not a hunter, but I do recognize the fact that hunting contributes to the welfare of every wild animal in this country. And I'm not jumping on you or anybody else. I'm just pointing out some facts that a lot of people aren't aware of.

 

[Joyce Summers]

Originally Posted by Rowan Hawthorn
Not jumping on you, but there's nothing instinctual about that; it's not instinct that tells you it's somehow Wrong to do something that humans have always done, and something that every other animal on earth does (with the exception of sport hunting, but a few animals even do that.) We're omnivores, adapted to eat meat as well as vegetables. The idea that it's somehow Wrong to actually partake in a large part of our natural diet, or that it's only okay if someone else kills the animal, is a product of indoctrination, not instinct. (By the way, those animals raised for food have absolutely no chance, zero, zip of survival compared to the animals in the wild, and are slaughtered in numbers that make hunters' takes pale by comparison.)

I accept that but my instinct I meant it's my personal feelings on the matter that can't be altered no matter what others say- it's just how I feel. I mean my grandfather used to hunt rabbits and then you know...have them for dinner so it's not like I was ever constantly raised by my family saying 'Never hunt anything ever', but I personally always hated it. And I hated that he hunted and ate rabbits. And I'm scared of rabbits! Haha.
And as for the raised-for-food animals, that's why they are killed in immense numbers, because they are purposefully raised and bred for food so I don't know whether it's possible to compare those numbers to hunters' takes, because hunters of course have to restrict their amount of kills. Also, I'd just like to note, mostly for the sake of it, the only meat I ever have is chicken and it is always free range and organic. I completely disagree with forcefed animals that are raised in a tight no-movement space.

Originally posted by White Avenger
Well, actually, in most cases, hunting really is a case of survival, and ironically, it's more about the survival of the animal species being hunted than the people. By taking the older, larger males of whatever species is hunted, the hunter allows the younger males the opportunity to breed, avoiding inbreeding and weakening of the local population.n Also, by thinning the herd, more grazing area is left for the others, and with the problems of steadily reducing habitat, grazing area is a critical concern.

And I might also point out that, without hunters and sports shooters and the license fees and taxes that they pay for their ammunition and other supplies, there would be no government parks or wildlife management at all, including the care and protection of the country's non game and endangered species, because those taxes are the exclusive support for those facilities. No forest or park rangers, no government funding for research programs to preserve and protect ALL wild animals, hot just the ones that sportsmen and women hunt. Without the hunters and fishermen, all of that would be lost.

I'm not a hunter, but I do recognize the fact that hunting contributes to the welfare of every wild animal in this country. And I'm not jumping on you or anybody else. I'm just pointing out some facts that a lot of people aren't aware of.

Yes I did acknowledge that hunting is also done to prevent being overran by the animal- for all the reasons you mentioned- and I do appreciate all these facts, and that it has to be done for certain reasons etc etc, but I myself just don't like it. I'd rather live in denial of the fact it happens at all. I know that sounds naive and uneducated but I'd just prefer to stay in the dark as regards to nessecary hunting and be angered by the unnessecary.

 

[T.I.P]

Comparing an actual hunt to walking down the street shooting at domesticated animals that don't know enough to avoid you is idiot talk, that's what about it. You don't have a clue what you're talking about, but you want to toss off some ignorant claim like it actually makes sense.


Are you a vegetarian? 'Cause if you're not, the difference between you and those hunters is that you're the guy who pays some "hired gun" to do your killing for you. No moral high ground there, let's stop pretending there is.


And so, what? That means everyone who hunts does that in your world? You need to grow up and learn that there are all kinds of people in the world. Not everybody ties cats' tails together to make them fight, either. I don't like those people any better than you do.



It's the difference between a shooting gallery and a target that can run away - or, in the case of some animals, kill your ass if you're careless. Like a lot of other "animal lovers", it sounds to me like you need to spend a little more time finding out what real animals are like, and a little less time watching the Disney Channel.

1: Yeah i compared, Domestic or wild, its still just killing animals that dont need to be killed, its for your pleasure and thats it. So stop trying to rationalize it by saying its ok to kill deer etc, but not cats or dogs.

2: Hunt an animal and eat it? fine by me. Anything else is kinda messed up. No morale high ground im afraid. Stop pretending everyone that hunts does it because they need to eat.

3: I spend lots of time finding out what *real* animals are like:drunk: But look at your reasoning, If an animal can run or fight, its fair game, if it cant fight or run, its not fair game! Obviously a wild animals gonna run or fight, and your still gonna hunt and kill it, so the fact it can run or 'kill your ass' dosent make it fairer to shoot it.

 

[November]

Like I said before, I dont know enough about the hunting practices other places in the world, but here I think it is necessary. If you could see the damage that introduced species have done to our environment you would be appalled. Heaps of our native animals are being wiped out by feral cats foxes and rabbits. I went to boarding school with a bunch of farming kids who had grown up having to deal with these pests. Alot of the rabbits around the school had myxo so they were going to die a slow painful death anyway, I think the boys were doing them a favour by ending the suffering quickly. What are the opinions on that? Or if animals are starving from over population? What about feral animals that only exist because of stupid people who want to breed cute kittens but then cant look after them?
I assume that the animals Eliza was hunting were not endangered, perhaps not at pest level but it wasnt going to harm the species much to hunt a few, it may even have benefited the animals from what I have read here. As long as the animal is killed quickly and efficiently I have no problem with it.

 

[Rowan Hawthorn]

1: Yeah i compared, Domestic or wild, its still just killing animals that dont need to be killed, its for your pleasure and thats it.

I eat what I kill, child. Did you miss that, or does that just put too much of a kink in your cherished theory?

So stop trying to rationalize it by saying its ok to kill deer etc, but not cats or dogs.

I never said that, either, so apparently there's a problem with reading comprehension. I'm objecting to the insinuation that hunters in general are the kind of people who kill indiscriminately, domesticated pets included.

2: Hunt an animal and eat it? fine by me. Anything else is kinda messed up. No morale high ground im afraid. Stop pretending everyone that hunts does it because they need to eat.

They do need to eat; maybe someone in your world made up a rule that says you can only hunt if you're actively starving, but no one else is bound to abide by that rule. Everything they (we) take that goes in the freezer means money that doesn't have to go to the grocer, and that means money that can be used on other things, like medical expenses, clothing, and transportation. Do you support yourself yet? The last deer I got dressed out at close to a hundred pounds. Next time you go to the supermarket, do a little pricing (don't forget to include hams, tenderloin, and steaks in addition to hamburger,) and do a little figuring on how much it would cost to buy that much meat.

3: I spend lots of time finding out what *real* animals are like

Couldn't tell it by what you're saying here.

But look at your reasoning, If an animal can run or fight, its fair game, if it cant fight or run, its not fair game!

That's all you get out of this thread? Sad...

 

[T.I.P]

Ok Rowan, you gimp, theres been some misunderstanding and unclear posts(by both of us).
To me, if a hunter caught a deer, takes it home and eats it, thats actually more right and humane than someone that goes and buys meat from a store. Any other kind of hunting though, i think is wrong. So, im sorry for accusing all hunters of being bad people, i do know its not like that.
But, cut a city guy like me some slack, where im staying just now(for last year and a half) for the first time ever ive met hunters, i know 12 of them(7 are brothers, but still) and know what, none hunt for food, its all for pleasure, and they happily admit this. So you can understand my cynical views that most people that hunt aint doing it simply for food. But Rowan, i'll take your word for it.

 

[Lou]

Not jumping on you, but there's nothing instinctual about that; it's not instinct that tells you it's somehow Wrong to do something that humans have always done, and something that every other animal on earth does (with the exception of sport hunting, but a few animals even do that.) We're omnivores, adapted to eat meat as well as vegetables. The idea that it's somehow Wrong to actually partake in a large part of our natural diet, or that it's only okay if someone else kills the animal, is a product of indoctrination, not instinct. (By the way, those animals raised for food have absolutely no chance, zero, zip of survival compared to the animals in the wild, and are slaughtered in numbers that make hunters' takes pale by comparison.)

I have just one tiny issue with this point.
It very well could be "instinct" that tells JS that this is wrong. Just because your instinct doesn't, doesn't mean everyone's doesn't.
It's not so much that people don't eat meat or that if we were turned into cavemen over night people wouldn't hunt.

It's that MOST hunters...in fact EVERY hunter that I know does not hunt because they NEED food. They hunt for sport and, true, most end up eating what they kill. But, they HUNT for sport not out to necessity.
You mentioned you've shot rabbits with a pistol, was that for sport or because you were totally out of food and NEEDED dinner?

The other problem with the theory of hunting in general is that you speak of all the instincts an animal has, which are all true. But, animals don't have the ability to learn our movements or gain knowledge of our methods we use the way we can use our knowledge against them. A deer can't choose to use a tree stand to ambush random hunters. A bunny can't go to the library and find a defense to a pistol. And they can't mask their smells to attack us unknowingly.

It very well CAN be instinct in this day and age to say you don't feel right killing an animal that we have an advantage over.
I've told my husband we could never run a farm like his grandfather does because I could NEVER feed and care for cattle from babies only to slaughter them later. Yes, I eat meat. But, I can't care for something and then eat it.

But, there are MANY people who take hunting TOO FAR and if you hunt, you should be aware of that too.
I'd say about half of the hunters I know are very aware and careful. Oddly, most are bow hunters. They go once a year, usually with their Dad or their son. They bond. Maybe every other year they shoot something. They hunt their deer and come home. They eat what they kill. I can live with that.

Then there's the other half. Who will go to ANY season once it's open. They will also sit on their porch and have no trouble shooting down bird nests or shooting rabbits or squirrels in their yard for kicks or because they're "bugging" them. Sometimes that urge to "practice" or improve their aim or just kill for the sake of killing takes over. At which point, it's NOT much different than shooting a cat or dog on the street. Heck, I've heard these people talk about SHOOTING dogs they didn't like coming on their property. Not that they're dangerous or hurting anything, just didn't ever like that dog.

In my mind, there is a BIG difference between aiming a bow and arrow at a deer one weekend a year....if you actually see a deer, and shooting dogs and rabbits for kicks.
And it DOES happen.

I think chances are that Eliza and perhaps you, Rowan, are in the good category and get your licenses and follow the rules and aren't out there just for the rush of it. And I have little issue with that.

But, some people do. I love shooting a bow, but I doubt I could even pull back the string if you put an animal in front of me. That would just be instinct. Perhaps if I had no food for weeks, that might change, but assuming the world stays the same, instinct tells me to not take a life of a creature weaker than I am.

 

[white avenger]

Eliza Dushku upsets Animal Lovers with Hunting Boasts

I just found this, and I thought that if there were anyone here who hadn't seen it...

 

[Rowan Hawthorn]

I have just one tiny issue with this point.
It very well could be "instinct" that tells JS that this is wrong. Just because your instinct doesn't, doesn't mean everyone's doesn't.
It's not so much that people don't eat meat or that if we were turned into cavemen over night people wouldn't hunt.

It's that MOST hunters...in fact EVERY hunter that I know does not hunt because they NEED food. They hunt for sport and, true, most end up eating what they kill. But, they HUNT for sport not out to necessity.
You mentioned you've shot rabbits with a pistol, was that for sport or because you were totally out of food and NEEDED dinner?

Why should I - or anyone else - have to be totally out of food in order for it to be okay with you if we choose our own meals? The rabbits I took made dinner for me; how is that any different from the chicken farmer who goes out back and takes one of his stock for dinner tonight in place of a store-bought meal? Where I lived, I could have taken several rabbits every single day if I wanted to. But I didn't - I only took one every now and then. Nobody has to justify that to anybody, especially to kids who apparently haven't had to face the concept of making ends meet. A person doesn't have to be starving to appreciate a little relief in their grocery bill.

The other problem with the theory of hunting in general is that you speak of all the instincts an animal has, which are all true. But, animals don't have the ability to learn our movements or gain knowledge of our methods we use the way we can use our knowledge against them. A deer can't choose to use a tree stand to ambush random hunters. A bunny can't go to the library and find a defense to a pistol. And they can't mask their smells to attack us unknowingly.

You're kidding, right? No, animals can't "use the library", but if you think they can't learn, you're kidding yourself.

It very well CAN be instinct in this day and age to say you don't feel right killing an animal that we have an advantage over. I've told my husband we could never run a farm like his grandfather does because I could NEVER feed and care for cattle from babies only to slaughter them later. Yes, I eat meat. But, I can't care for something and then eat it.

That's your choice. But that doesn't put anybody else under any responsibility to follow suit.

But, there are MANY people who take hunting TOO FAR and if you hunt, you should be aware of that too.

More than I'd like; there are people I know that I WILL NOT hunt with. And if I caught them doing the kinds of things it's been reported to me that they're guilty of, I'd turn them over to the game warden in a heartbeat. But I won't be held responsible for their actions.

I'd say about half of the hunters I know are very aware and careful. Oddly, most are bow hunters. They go once a year, usually with their Dad or their son. They bond. Maybe every other year they shoot something. They hunt their deer and come home. They eat what they kill. I can live with that.

Then there's the other half. Who will go to ANY season once it's open.

And why is that a problem? You do realize that people eat more than just one kind of meat, right?

They will also sit on their porch and have no trouble shooting down bird nests or shooting rabbits or squirrels in their yard for kicks or because they're "bugging" them. Sometimes that urge to "practice" or improve their aim or just kill for the sake of killing takes over.

I don't like this, either, but again, I will not be held responsible for somebody else's actions. Look at the number of drunk drivers on the road - maybe we should just outlaw cars, because, y'know, all these here drivers like to get wasted before they get behind the wheel...

 

[white avenger]

Eliza Dushku upsets Animal Lovers with Hunting Boasts

I just found this and thought that it should be appropriate for this thread. I fimd some irony in the PETA representative's statement about Eliza being taken to task, though, when he immediately after tells a whopper like the percentage of Americans who "oppose" hunting. He must be only interviewing his own members...

 

[T.I.P]

Damn, 95% of Americans oppose hunting? i find that a bit hard to believe. Unless of course, they actually asked every American.

 

[Lou]

Why should I - or anyone else - have to be totally out of food in order for it to be okay with you if we choose our own meals? The rabbits I took made dinner for me; how is that any different from the chicken farmer who goes out back and takes one of his stock for dinner tonight in place of a store-bought meal? Where I lived, I could have taken several rabbits every single day if I wanted to. But I didn't - I only took one every now and then. Nobody has to justify that to anybody, especially to kids who apparently haven't had to face the concept of making ends meet. A person doesn't have to be starving to appreciate a little relief in their grocery bill.

I think you're trying to miss the point. The point was, that hunting is still mostly done for SPORT than for necessity.
With hunting "seasons" it's nearly impossible to go hunt for necessity these days.
You seem to be basically saying the extra helps, which is true, but not what I was saying at all.
I'm just saying it's done as a "sport", sport is still sport. Yes, the extra food may be a bonus, but it's still a choice and not poor caveman who MUST personally kill an animal or starve to death.

You're kidding, right? No, animals can't "use the library", but if you think they can't learn, you're kidding yourself.

Once again, missing the point. Of course, animals can learn. As a whole, however, a person who wants to hunt can get magazines, books, talk to other hunters and get "tips and tricks", the general areas that are hoppin' for game, all sorts of stuff. A deer doesn't have access to the internet to say, "hmmm....lets see where the hunters will be this season, oh and then I'll go buy a 6 pack and lure them to this area and then pounce on them from a tree and then I'll share this info of the way things have changed in the last year with all my fellow deer before the season starts."

That's your choice. But that doesn't put anybody else under any responsibility to follow suit.

As an ADDED note, I already said I don't have lots of issues with hunting NOR do I think that my fews should stop people from hunting. I think nothing less about Eliza for going bow hunting, in fact, I have some respect for bow hunters. I never said I thought you or anyone else should follow suit and NOT hunt, nor did I say I'm 100% against it.
Although, I DO believe that someone who thinks that hunting is against their instincts can very easily say it's that and not have to be told that their instincts are to kill and they just don't know it.
If you WANT to hunt, go nuts. But, it does bother people and there are very valid reasons for it.

If you insist on chopping up my posts, however, I'd thank you to not cut it up mid paragraph. What I said was.....

Then there's the other half. Who will go to ANY season once it's open. They will also sit on their porch and have no trouble shooting down bird nests or shooting rabbits or squirrels in their yard for kicks or because they're "bugging" them.

I never said going to every season once it's open is BAD. That sentence GOES WITH the next one.
And there is a clear distinction in between the people who go once, maybe twice a year and the people who go all the time. It's the people who go all the time that seem to also be the ones who will shoot random animals in the backyard for kicks and then just haul the dead bodies to the "burn pile".
So, to answer your question properly....the rest of the paragraph explains what is wrong with that.

 

[Rowan Hawthorn]

I think you're trying to miss the point.

No, I just don't think you have a valid point.

The point was, that hunting is still mostly done for SPORT than for necessity.
With hunting "seasons" it's nearly impossible to go hunt for necessity these days.

These days, they have these neat little things called "freezers" that you can buy pretty inexpensively, and they let you keep food way beyond hunting season...

You seem to be basically saying the extra helps, which is true, but not what I was saying at all.
I'm just saying it's done as a "sport", sport is still sport. Yes, the extra food may be a bonus, but it's still a choice and not poor caveman who MUST personally kill an animal or starve to death.

And again, I see no valid point there. If someone uses the meat, takes no more than their share, follows all the game laws, and makes sure that they kill quickly and humanely, what else matters?

Once again, missing the point. Of course, animals can learn. As a whole, however, a person who wants to hunt can get magazines, books, talk to other hunters and get "tips and tricks", the general areas that are hoppin' for game, all sorts of stuff. A deer doesn't have access to the internet to say, "hmmm....lets see where the hunters will be this season, oh and then I'll go buy a 6 pack and lure them to this area and then pounce on them from a tree...(snip)

Now, see, this is where your real point starts to show through. There's only a small percentage of hunters who are stupid enough to mix alcohol and weapons. Why do you feel it necessary to use the same old stereotype? If you really do know any hunters, you know it's a false one, so why use it to try to bolster up a weak argument?

As an ADDED note, I already said I don't have lots of issues with hunting NOR do I think that my fews should stop people from hunting. I think nothing less about Eliza for going bow hunting, in fact, I have some respect for bow hunters. I never said I thought you or anyone else should follow suit and NOT hunt, nor did I say I'm 100% against it.
Although, I DO believe that someone who thinks that hunting is against their instincts can very easily say it's that and not have to be told that their instincts are to kill and they just don't know it.
If you WANT to hunt, go nuts. But, it does bother people and there are very valid reasons for it.

I haven't seen any so far. I've seen some valid arguments against certain types of so-called hunters, but that's a different argument that keeps getting lost in the shuffle.

If you insist on chopping up my posts, however, I'd thank you to not cut it up mid paragraph. What I said was.....

I never said going to every season once it's open is BAD. That sentence GOES WITH the next one.
And there is a clear distinction in between the people who go once, maybe twice a year and the people who go all the time. It's the people who go all the time that seem to also be the ones who will shoot random animals in the backyard for kicks and then just haul the dead bodies to the "burn pile". So, to answer your question properly....the rest of the paragraph explains what is wrong with that.

Now there again, if you actually know any hunters, you know that, as a general rule, that isn't true, any more than it's true that every teen driver is a doper or every older driver has Alzheimer's, or every Southern male drives with a six-pack in the seat beside him. These are just stereotypes that people use to avoid addressing the fact that other people are people just like them. I'd guess that there are probably some avid hunters among your circle of acquaintances that you don't even know are hunters, because they don't want to put up with the BS that follows. I'm in the computer field, and one of my associates lost a contract he'd had for years because he let it slip to the client that he'd gone on a bear hunt on his last vacation.

 

[Blondie Bear]

Wow, this is getting way more heated than it probably needed to. But, then, hunting is one of those issues--like gun control--that does that. And when you get someone purposefully riling people up (littlewilly), it makes it that much worse.

As far as the instinct theory--my hubby with his wonderful psychology credentials informs me that, no, that's not instinct, it's indoctrination. Instinct rules things like flinching when someone swings at you, knowing how to be a parent, knowing how to find food, etc. Things that we as human beings have figured out how to do other ways. We barely use our instincts anymore. But not hunting is not an instinct because it does not contribute to the life and well-being of the human animal. We are still animals, guys. We may have surrounded ourselves with lots of little gadgets and houses and things so that we don't have to go out and kill every day to get food, clothing, and shelter, and I don't have to have a guard standing over me with a spear so I can wash my clothes and get a drink in peace, but we are still animals. We are the apex predator on this planet. I cannot understand why people insist on talking themselves OUT of being the apex predator when that ability gave us huge brains and the free time needed to create society as we know it.

 

[Superstar]

All those stray cats, dogs and animals put to sleep by local humane societies and PETA itself is just plain wastin' of good eats that could be utilized to assist the homeless and a definite loss of sale to chinese restaurants among other helpful solutions.
Joss' Firefly had it right, "Good Dogs!" - fry them puppies up on the grill.

Have I said I really detest Organized Religions, of all types?

 

[white avenger]

Actually, BB, there's nothing instinctual about being a good parent, not in humans, anyway, and I don't really think that I have to give examples of that. Also, predators do hunt by instinct, at least those in the wild do, even those who are separated from their parents at a young age, and humans are, in the end, predators. It's indoctrination that causes us to go to the grocery store instead of hunting and gathering our food in a more direct manner. Arguably, humans don't NEED to go out into the wild and kill their own food, but there are farmers who raise their own cattle, pigs, chickens, or whatever, slaughter them themselves, process the meat, and either eat it themselves or sell/barter it to others. It's just less trouble to shoot a steer in a pin than shoot a deer in the forest. I personally see very little other difference in hunting and shooting a turkey and raising one and wringing its neck, as long as it winds up on the table at Thanksgiving, or any other time for that matter.

The argument about whether hunting is or is not somehow "right" or not isn't something that is going to ever be truly settled, and each side has valid arguments. I'm not a hunter, but I choose to side with them, within certain limits, such as the most obvious ones of of observing the existing laws that pertain, making the kill as quickly and painlessly as possible, never leaving a wounded animal to suffer and die, and never killing anything just to see it die. If you kill it as game, you eat it. Hunting has nothing to do with defense against attacking or potentially dangerous animals, and shouldn't even be a part of the discussion.

Basically, I believe that as long as hunting and fishing are legal, it's a matter of individual choice. If you can do it within the limits of the law and good common sense, and choose to, then go ahead and do it. If you choose not to, fine, don't. If I don't think any less of non hunters for adhering to their beliefs, then they should afford hunters the same courtesy.